The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern

An important parameter for the clinical success of dental implants is the formation of direct contact between the implant and surrounding bone, whose quality is directly influenced by the implant surface roughness. A screw-shaped design and a surface with an average roughness of Sa of 1-2 µm showed a better result. The combination of blasting and etching has been a commonly used surface treatment technique. The versatility of this type of treatment allows for a wide variation in the procedures in order to obtain the desired roughness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the roughness values and morphological characteristics of 04 brands of implants, using the same type of surface treatment. In addition, to compare the results among brands, in order to assess whether the type of treatment determines the values and the characteristics of implant surface roughness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three implants were purchased directly from each selected company in the market, i.e., 03 Brazilian companies (Biomet 3i of Brazil, Neodent and Titaniumfix) and 01 Korean company (Oneplant). The quantitative or numerical characterization of the roughness was performed using an interferometer. The qualitative analysis of the surface topography obtained with the treatment was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy images. RESULTS: The evaluated implants showed a significant variation in roughness values: Sa for Oneplant was 1.01 µm; Titaniumfix reached 0.90 µm; implants from Neodent 0.67 µm, and Biomet 3i of Brazil 0.53 µm. Moreover, the SEM images showed very different patterns for the surfaces examined. CONCCLUSIONS: The surface treatment alone is not able to determine the roughness values and characteristics

Chronic skull-anchored percutaneous implants in non-human primates

Three groups of chronic, skull-anchored, percutaneous implants differing in materials, design and surgical procedures used for implantation, were tested in macaque monkeys in conjunction with studies of an inner ear stimulation device. Implants from the first two groups in which high-speed drilling methods and stainless steel materials were used, showed a high percentage of failures during the first 3 months after implantation of the percutaneous connector. Implants in the third group, in which measures were taken to preserve living bone tissue, all survived for greater than 7 months. Probable factors relating to implant survival are care of the bone during surgery, postsurgical mechanical trauma, materials and other details of the surgical procedure.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/27773/1/0000167.pd

Are Oral Implants the Same As Teeth?

Osseointegration of oral implants was initially discovered by Brånemark [...

Tissue Preservation in caries treatment

365 hlm

Tissue Preservation in caries treatment

365 hlm

Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration

Aim: To analyse possible effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration. Materials and methods: Our analyses were centred on a PubMed search that identified 1184 publications of assumed relevance; of those, 1064 had to be disregarded because they did not accurately present in vivo data on bone response to surface topography. The remaining 120 papers were read and analysed, after removal of an additional 20 papers that mainly dealt with CaP-coated and Zr implants; 100 papers remained and formed the basis for this paper. The bone response to differently configurated surfaces was mainly evaluated by histomorphometry (bone-to-implant contact), removal torque and pushout/pullout tests. Results and discussion: A huge number of the experimental investigations have demonstrated that the bone response was influenced by the implant surface topography; smooth (Sa1–2 μm) surfaces showed stronger bone responses than rough (Sa>2 μm) in some studies. One limitation was that it was difficult to compare many studies because of the varying quality of surface evaluations; a surface termed 'rough' in one study was not uncommonly referred to as 'smooth' in another; many investigators falsely assumed that surface preparation per se identified the roughness of the implant; and many other studies used only qualitative techniques such as SEM. Furthermore, filtering techniques differed or only height parameters (Sa, Ra) were reported. Conclusions: • Surface topography influences bone response at the micrometre level. • Some indications exist that surface topography influences bone response at the nanometre level. • The majority of published papers present an inadequate surface characterization. • Measurement and evaluation techniques need to be standardized. • Not only height descriptive parameters but also spatial and hybrid ones should be used

On osseointegration in relation to implant surfaces

Background The understanding of mechanisms of osseointegration as well as applied knowledge about oral implant surfaces are of paramount importance for successful clinical results. Purpose The aim of the present article is to present an overview of osseointegration mechanisms and an introduction to surface innovations with relevance for osseointegration that will be published in the same supplement of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. Materials and Methods The present article is a narrative review of some osseointegration and implant surface-related details. Results and Conclusions Osseointegration has a changed definition since it is realized today that oral implants are but foreign bodies and that this fact explains osseointegration as a protection mechanism of the tissues. Given adequate stability, bone tissue is formed around titanium implants to shield them from the tissues. Oral implant surfaces may be characterized by microroughness and nanoroughness, by surface chemical composition and by physical and mechanical parameters. An isotropic, moderately rough implant surface such as seen on the TiUnite device has displayed improved clinical results compared to previously used minimally rough or rough surfaces. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence supporting any particular type of nanoroughness pattern that, at best, is documented with results from animal studies. It is possible, but as yet unproven, that clinical results may be supported by a certain chemical composition of the implant surface. The same can be said with respect to hydrophilicity of implant surfaces; positive animal data may suggest some promise, but there is a lack of clinical evidence that hydrophilic implants result in improved clinical outcome of more hydrophobic surfaces. With respect to mechanical properties, it seems obvious that those must be encompassing the loading of oral implants, but we need more research on the mechanically ideal implant surface from a clinical aspect

Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants

Very high survival/success rates have been reported for implant treatment, irrespective of the prosthetic type of reconstruction, be those full arcs, partial dentures, combined tooth implants or single crowns. However, survival/success is commonly reported in simple Cumulative Survival/Success Rate (CSR) tables only that may overestimate the true clinical outcome; furthermore, future challenges to clinical success may originate from too rapid launching of untested novelties or recommendations to apply too bold clinical procedures, potential problems that are summarised in the present paper